The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #541  
Old 04-23-2015, 12:24 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,194
Knighthoods in this order were stopped in the early 1980s until Tony Abbot reestablished them in 2014 so he can't have turned it down all that often as he accepted it within about 8 months of the award being re-established and he already had the next highest level anyway. SHE can't do anything in AUSTRALIA. She is a figure-head only with NO power or SAY in this country. That was stripped from her via the constitution in 1901 and the Australia Act in 1986.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #542  
Old 04-23-2015, 12:37 AM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 1,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
She is a figure-head only with NO power or SAY in this country. That was stripped from her via the constitution in 1901 and the Australia Act in 1986.
That's what's great with a constitutional monarchy. He / she shall have no political power.
__________________

__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #543  
Old 04-23-2015, 12:51 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnystar View Post
Well, yes, this is true. There must be more to the story of why he accepted when he's supposedly, in the past, declined. I suppose, though, at some point, she might have chosen to assert herself and remind him that SHE is The Queen and she can do as she pleases.

The DoE refused the Order of Canada twice on the grounds that he disliked the way it was being offered to him - the first time it was an honourary Companion, and he declined because he believed that as consort to the Queen he was Canadian and therefore eligible to a substantive appointment, and the second time because they proposed to make the spouse of the monarch automatically a Companion and he believed he should be honoured for his own merits. When the rules of the Order were changed and he was offered a substantive Companion for his own merits he accepted.

I do not believe the DoE has ever declined the Order of Australia before. As Bertie pointed out, the Knighthood is a newly revived grade of the order. Until recently, the DoE was a Companion of the Order in the military division.

While the Australian members of the boards very likely disagree, it's very likely that the DoE considers himself an Australian citizen as the spouse of the Australian monarch, and deserving of this honour.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROYAL NORWAY View Post
This is Tony Abbott's fault, it was he who asked the Queen to give him the Knighthood. And of course he accepted it. He didn't want to be rude.

The idea of the DoE doing something because he didn't want to be rude makes me laugh. It's the DoE we're talking about.
Reply With Quote
  #544  
Old 04-23-2015, 12:55 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Philip would have gone up in my estimation if he had turned it down, but I am impressed by people taking a stand like that. He wouldn't have been perceived as rude if he'd refused it.

No, actually he probably would have been. I can imagine comments like, "The Pommy (or Greek, since some people here still do refer to him as 'Phil the Greek') bastard thinks he's too good for our knighthood". He was placed in a difficult situation by having the darn thing offered to him. It should never have happened. He probably felt compelled to accept it or risk causing offence. I wonder if he has any idea how much controversy it has aroused here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
The idea of the DoE doing something because he didn't want to be rude makes me laugh. It's the DoE we're talking about.
True! But perhaps he has mellowed a little with age.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #545  
Old 04-23-2015, 01:57 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
Philip would have gone up in my estimation if he had turned it down, but I am impressed by people taking a stand like that. He wouldn't have been perceived as rude if he'd refused it.

No, actually he probably would have been. I can imagine comments like, "The Pommy (or Greek, since some people here still do refer to him as 'Phil the Greek') bastard thinks he's too good for our knighthood". He was placed in a difficult situation by having the darn thing offered to him. It should never have happened. He probably felt compelled to accept it or risk causing offence. I wonder if he has any idea how much controversy it has aroused here?



True! But perhaps he has mellowed a little with age.

I'm sure gems aware of the controversy around it - I'm sure he was aware before the award was announced.

Ultimately, I think it was a situation where the DoE was damned if he accepted the honour and damned if he didn't. I don't think Abbot really gave him grounds to deny it - when he denied his Canadian honours it was because the way they were offered insulted him. The way this was offered didn't insult him (Australians, perhaps, but not him). I bet he feels he has earned this as much as he has earned his other Commonwealth honours - which, his behavior regarding the Order of Canada indicates that he does believe he deserves them.

What you have here is a man who does believe in the system of monarchy and the honours that go with it. He is a man who has served his monarch for more than 60 years and while Australians might not support the monarchy or believe that the RF are Australians who support Australia, the DoE's comments in the past make me think he believes otherwise; he's presented himself as a servant of the monarch of the Commonwealth Realms, asserted that he identifies himself as a subject of the Commonwealth Realms as the monarch's husband, and has said that a monarchy exists for the people, not the monarch, and if the people do not want it then it is their responsibility to create a republic. With that in mind, given as the award offered to the DoE was a substantive one based on his merits, then I would argue that the DoE likely believes he has earned it. If he were to reject it then he's insulting the order and Australians - he'd be saying "yes, this Order that by my account (and your PM's) I have earned isn't something I'm going to lower myself to accepting because you're really just silly republican colonialists."

At least that's my take on it.

I think the problem here doesn't lay at the DoE's feet - because again, he has served the monarch of Australia for pretty much the whole of his adult life - for accepting the award. It's on Tony Abbot for offering it when it seems to go so strongly against the desires of the people of Australia. In a way it can even be laid at the feet of the Australian people themselves, who despite apparently being strong republicans chose to elect a staunch monarchist as PM (although I'm assuming that this behaviour is indicative of the general policy of Abbot's party, and isn't simply his own doing).
Reply With Quote
  #546  
Old 04-23-2015, 02:00 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,644
Perhaps a lot of this controversy could have been avoided if Tony Abbot had put a bit more thought into reestablishing the Order of Australia. Although the Order of Australia is a national honor as opposed to a dynastic order such as the Order of the Garter, how hard would it have been to establish a gong for "stranger knights" such as are awarded to foreigners honored with the Order of the Garter?
__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
Reply With Quote
  #547  
Old 04-23-2015, 02:29 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Perhaps a lot of this controversy could have been avoided if Tony Abbot had put a bit more thought into reestablishing the Order of Australia. Although the Order of Australia is a national honor as opposed to a dynastic order such as the Order of the Garter, how hard would it have been to establish a gong for "stranger knights" such as are awarded to foreigners honored with the Order of the Garter?
The DoE likely would have rejected such an honour - he rejected being given an honourary Order of Canada on the grounds that as the monarch's spouse he is a Canadian citizen.

I believe in the 80s a provision was added to the Order of Australia to make members of the royal family eligible, regardless of debatable citizenship. A similar provision was added to the Order of Canada more recently.
Reply With Quote
  #548  
Old 04-23-2015, 03:53 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Perhaps a lot of this controversy could have been avoided if Tony Abbot had put a bit more thought into reestablishing the Order of Australia. Although the Order of Australia is a national honor as opposed to a dynastic order such as the Order of the Garter, how hard would it have been to establish a gong for "stranger knights" such as are awarded to foreigners honored with the Order of the Garter?
There was no re-establishing of the Order of Australia. It has been the only awards acceptable to Aussies since the 1980s but the idea of knights was done away with until Tony decided to revive them. 5 a year and the first three were true servants of Australia - the outgoing and incoming GGs and the outgoing Governor of NSW.

They even had to change the rules of the order to allow Philip to get one as the Order of Australia is limited to Australians only - meaning that Philip is NOT an Australian and even his wife doesn't see him as one (other realms might regard him as a citizen of their country but Australia most definitely doesn't.) They had to change the rules to allow for 'honourary' appointments for non- Australians and that is what he has received - because he is a foreigner in every possible way.
Reply With Quote
  #549  
Old 04-23-2015, 08:22 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 219
The Order of Australia has included honorary membership since its establishment in 1975. The Duke of Edinburgh's AK, however, is substantive, not honorary. It is not gazetted as honorary, or referred to as honorary in any of the official announcements. The citizenship issue was sidestepped by the Queen issuing Letters Patent that simply declared that the Duke of Edinburgh is a Knight of the Order of Australia (the same process used in 1981 for the Prince of Wales). The latest version of the Constitution of the Order of Australia, published last week, lists the Duke of Edinburgh as a "Knight in the General Division of the Order", with precedence immediately after the Governor-General (the position previously held by the Prince of Wales, who now takes precedence after the Duke).

Constitution of the Order of Australia, Compilation 13, Prepared 16 April 2015

I don't have a problem with the Duke of Edinburgh receiving an AK, and I like having Knights and Dames back in the Order of Australia. But I do not approve of the Prime Minister's decision to exclude its awarding from the Council of the Order Australia. By making his "captain's call" the Prime Minister placed the Queen in an awkward position, made the Duke of Edinburgh the object of ridicule, and killed off any chance of Knights and Dames of the Order of Australia surviving a change in government.
Reply With Quote
  #550  
Old 04-23-2015, 09:07 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 219
On another point, the Constitution of Australia did not strip the monarch of power in 1901, it entrenched it. The Queen makes up one third of the Parliament (Section 1). Executive power is vested in the Queen, but is exercisable by the Governor-General (Section 61). If the Queen moved permanently to Canberra we would still need a Governor-General to keep the wheels of government turning. That is why legislation was needed in 1954 to allow the Queen to carry out the Governor-General's duties to open the Commonwealth Parliament and chair a meeting of the Federal Executive Council. But it is simplistic to conclude that the Queen has no power in Australia, as constitutionally and symbolically she clearly does. That she cannot exercise the executive powers vested in her by the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution, and does not exercise the powers she has under the various State Constitutions, does not mean they do not exist.

Interestingly, at a state level, the Queen now has more freedom of action than she did prior to the Australia Act 1986. Up until then, state governments did not have direct access to the Queen, they had to go through the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. But in 1986 all British Government involvement with Australia came to an end, and Australia's six state governments gained immediate access to the Queen. Under normal conventions, the Queen is obliged to accept the advice of her responsible ministers. But what would happen if the Premier of Victoria advised her to sack the Governor of Tasmania, while the Premier of Tasmania advised her to sack the Premier of Victoria? The solution is that the Queen is obliged to accept the advice of her state ministers only when it relates to the appointment of a state governor, or an issue clearly pertaining only to that state. All other advice is to be discussed with the Queen's Private Secretary before it can be formally submitted.
Reply With Quote
  #551  
Old 04-23-2015, 11:13 AM
vkrish's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 899
It is quite amusing to see even senior, serious and well respected members ranting furiously about him being a "foreigner". But so is your HEAD OF STATE. Aussies cling so desperately to coat(skirt)-tails of a foreign monarch halfway across the globe, want all the stability, glitz and glamour that comes with it..but are so ashamed to honour her consort who has been her backbone for two thirds of a century. The Queen is not just the person, she is an institution. When you sign up for a system, you have to live with the baggage that comes with it. Take it in entirety or just leave it!
Reply With Quote
  #552  
Old 04-23-2015, 11:33 AM
muriel's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrish View Post
It is quite amusing to see even senior, serious and well respected members ranting furiously about him being a "foreigner". But so is your HEAD OF STATE. Aussies cling so desperately to coat(skirt)-tails of a foreign monarch halfway across the globe, want all the stability, glitz and glamour that comes with it..but are so ashamed to honour her consort who has been her backbone for two thirds of a century. The Queen is not just the person, she is an institution. When you sign up for a system, you have to live with the baggage that comes with it. Take it in entirety or just leave it!
Quite right. Except when it comes to becoming a republic, they can't seem to come up with a credible alternative.

I guess the closest equivalent we have to this is situation are the Scots: they love complaining about being a part of the UK, but clearly do not want to leave it!
Reply With Quote
  #553  
Old 04-23-2015, 12:32 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,203
Iluvbertie doesn't speak for me either! And the imputation that often comes from Australian republicans that Australian monarchists are somehow less Australian than they are or are British sycophants isn't true either! Heard too much of that sort of posturing during the referendum years ago.

I'm a Labor Party supporter, have been all my adult life. However, Tony Abbott is as proud an Australian as Malcolm Turnbull, Paul Keating or any others.
Reply With Quote
  #554  
Old 04-23-2015, 03:44 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 4,932
Several posts have been deleted because the discussion was veering way off topic. The tone of the discussion had become personal and argumentative which, in turn, is obviously disruptive to the majority of those interested in the topic of this thread. Posters are reminded to be civil and respectful towards one another and to discuss potentially emotive or sensitive issues in a reasonable and measured way, being mindful of others' opinions and to post within TRF Rules.
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #555  
Old 04-23-2015, 05:54 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,194
The Constitution stripped the monarch of the power to sign legislation - only the GG can do that. The Queen did sign something in 1954 and then there was a constitutional review and they determined that she didn't have the right or power to sign it into law under the constitution and that only the GG could do that.


The Australia Act stripped them of any other power still left - such as deciding on legal issues via the Privy Council.


The Queen has NO power in Australia at all. She is also the only member of the BRF who is a citizen of Australia. The others are foreigners whose titles are recognised here but aren't Australian titles but British ones.




As for the idea that Knights and Dames would survive a change of government - that was never going to happen as the ALP are totally opposed to that idea. I am not even sure they would survive a change of PM within the Coalition government we have now. I can see a new government legislating to ban them permanently so that they can't be revived on the whim of a PM in the future without having to pass through the parliament again.
Reply With Quote
  #556  
Old 04-23-2015, 07:33 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The Queen has NO power in Australia at all. She is also the only member of the BRF who is a citizen of Australia. The others are foreigners whose titles are recognised here but aren't Australian titles but British ones.
I don't believe the Queen is an Australian Citizen. She satisfies none of the eligibility criteria in the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. She was born in Britain, she's lived there all her life, hasn't got any Australian ancestry or family and has never once called this country home. The mere fact she has a statutory position under the Constitution does not give her citizenship.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #557  
Old 04-23-2015, 09:38 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,194
She is the exception to the rules as the Queen of Australia.
Reply With Quote
  #558  
Old 04-23-2015, 11:30 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Citizenship is a creature of citizenship statute, not the Constitution. If there is an exception for the Queen, it should be written down in the citizenship legislation, and I haven't found any mention of such an exception.

The Migration Act 1958 and its 1994 Regulations make is abundantly clear that members of the Queen's immediate family are non-citizens and require a visa to come here. The Queen is not mentioned but I consider that can simply be taken to mean that she has a special status, similar to that which means she does not require a passport. I do not believe she is an Australian citizen, and I know I'm not the only one with that opinion.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #559  
Old 04-24-2015, 12:11 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,203
Well, Elizabeth remains the Queen of Australia, regardless. (What's more, I don't believe that William and Kate, or Harry, went through the process of applying for visas to visit here.)

There seems to be a huge reluctance among Australian republicans to (a) acknowledge the results of the referendum on retaining the monarchy or polling since, and (b) on Australians being willing to retain any British links whatsoever.

Presumably Aussies knew the Queen (and her family) were 'foreigners' and 'non-Australian citizens' when they voted on whether to keep the Queen or not, and they voted to keep her.

To hear or read some observations, claiming to represent the opinion of ALL Australians, on this forum and others, people from other countries would form the view that ALL Australians loathe the very thought of the Queen and her family, can't wait to 'get rid of them all' and on the grounds of 'sycophancy' are longing to rid themselves of all British links. In reality, they know that this is not the case at all.
Reply With Quote
  #560  
Old 04-24-2015, 12:49 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 219
No, Iluvbertie, you are wrong about the Constitution and the Queen’s powers in Australia. Sweeping generalisations without reference to supporting legislation does not a fact make. Section 61 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia states that:
The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor General as the Queen’s representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.
But does this mean the Queen can never exercise her vested powers? It was never an issue until the Queen’s impending visit to Australia in 1953, during which the Prime Minister wanted her to open the Federal Parliament, chair a meeting of the Federal Executive Council, and sign bills reserved for her pleasure. The Royal Powers Act 1953 was passed to confirm that the Queen could exercise her vested powers when she is in Australia. Nothing has changed since then, and the Queen has opened the Federal Parliament a couple of times, as well as State Parliaments. Governors-General have also reserved legislation for her pleasure a number of times:
  • • Royal Style and Titles Act 1953
  • • Flags Act 1953
  • • Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968
  • • Royal Style and Titles Act 1973
  • • Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975
The Australia Act 1986 (Commonwealth), while not reserved for the Queen’s pleasure, did not commence until the Queen signed a proclamation in Canberra stating that it would come into effect the following day. Simultaneously, at 05:00 GMT and 16:00 AEST, on the 3rd March 1986 the Australia Act 1986 (UK) and the Australia Act 1986 (Commonwealth) took effect. The Australia Acts of 1986 stopped the Queen and Government of the United Kingdom from having any involvement in Australia’s governments. The Australia Act 1986 (Commonwealth), however, did not strip the Queen of Australia of any of her powers in relation to Australia. Such powers she has are defined by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia and would require a referendum to change or remove. A referendum was not required to approve the Australia Act 1986 because it did not change a single letter in the text of the Constitution.

The Queen of Australia hardly ever exercises her legislative and executive power, and then only when she is in Australia. But it still exists, unaltered since 1901. There is also her role in the constitutions of the six Australian States, and in other areas such as the military and community patronages. The Queen’s power and influence in Australia, in theory, symbolically and in practice, is somewhat nebulous and difficult to pin down. You can claim that the Queen has NO power in Australia as much as you like, but it is simply not true.

The ambiguity over the Queen’s powers is also reflected in her status in Australia. I do not think the Queen can be called an Australian Citizen, but nor can she be called a foreigner. Such terms are defined by legislation and she simply does not fit into any of the categories. She is Sovereign of Australia by virtue of the Constitution (and, I suppose, the various documents that established the Australian colonies), and Queen of Australia by legislation. As far as I'm concerned she is The Queen, and that's that.

The Order of Australia was established by Letters Patent that a Prime Minister can advise the Queen to update at any time. I’m not sure if legislation can be used to stop changes to the Letters Patent. An alternative might be to make the Constitution of the Order of Australia an act of parliament. But I hope AKs and ADs somehow manage to survive. Australia has a long history of Knights and Dames in public life, and I see nothing wrong with them as long as they are Australian.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
australia, british commonwealth, elizabeth ii, governor general, julia gillard, monarchy versus republic, parliament, queen elizabeth ii


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Queen and Canada: Residences, Governor General, etc... Duchess Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh 552 11-14-2016 07:12 PM
The Queen and New Zealand: Residences, Governor-General, etc... wbenson Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh 51 09-08-2016 11:29 PM
Brazilian Imperial Palaces, residences etc Marengo The Imperial Family of Brazil 23 03-14-2015 10:01 PM
General Discussion about Dutch Royal Residences Tina Dutch Royal Residences 20 10-06-2014 05:13 AM
The Queen and the Caribbean: Residences, Governors-General, etc... wbenson Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh 48 02-25-2012 05:56 AM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style christening of prince oscar coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria's maternity fashion current events duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece jubilee celebration kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction military monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary and womens rights princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania style royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:26 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises